Grateful syrian migrants beat man for being gay

[Perados]

@MikesJohnson
You noticed that I made it as easy as possible for you?

I raised a question.
As you didn't answered, but pointed out that I neither answered to a question you asked someone else. I instantly tried to answer the best way I could. Then asked you to do the same and REPEATED (written, no quote) the question.

You still didn't answered. I asked you a few times more, still nothing.
I quoted the whole question twice. Still nothing.
A final time I quoted the essentail part of the question, but still no answer.

Only after I confronted you with the consequences of your behaviour, you started to move and offered me to read the question, IF I WOULD WRITE IT AGAIN.


Sorry, but no. I was as gentle as possible. You have messed it up. You wrote, you are married. But I have to ask you, how old are you? Because this is a childish behaviour.
If you put me on ignore, I don't mind

 

[Klingsor]

Oh that's a "smear", like calling someone a racist? Lol, ok.

You asked. If you think it's no big deal to accuse someone (without any justification) of not caring about the safety of his fellow Americans, I guess you can keep playing that card. Not the first time you've used it.

 

[MikesJohnson]

You asked. If you think it's no big deal to accuse someone (without any justification) of not caring about the safety of his fellow Americans, I guess you can keep playing that card. Not the first time you've used it.

In lieu of the many terror attacks by Muslim immigrants or their offspring, it's certainly accurate to say that those who support bringing them here are obviously more interested in the welfare of foreign Muslims than their own citizens. That's not a smear, that's a fact.

 

[Klingsor]

In lieu of the many terror attacks by Muslim immigrants or their offspring, it's certainly accurate to say that those who support bringing them here are obviously more interested in the welfare of foreign Muslims than their own citizens. That's not a smear, that's a fact.

As someone you can appreciate once said, "There you go again."

 

[MikesJohnson]

Its not a smear if it's true.

 

[MikesJohnson]

Rumaysah and his Islamist supporters patrol the streets of East London, chastising British citizens for not complying with Islamic law. In a series of videos, they can be seen harassing women for inappropriate dress, rebuking men simply for drinking alcohol, and calling a man “dirty” on the suspicion that he might be gay:

 

[MikesJohnson]

Here is link to excerpt above.

http://americantoday.news/islamist-...-this-country-covered-from-head-to-toe-watch/

 

[malakos]

I guess around here the Muslim card trumps the gay card.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/gabriel-misshandlades-blodig-pa-oppen-gata-/

Simply because the risk of being killed by a Muslim terrorist is statistically remote, this is sufficient for the Islamophiles to write off the immense history of enmity between the West and the Ummah, and the significant impact this tension continues to have on us today. Inconvenient facts such as the "moderate" Muslim majority supporting social policies Westerners find abhorrent, or that Muslims are instructed in their sacred texts to deceive unbelievers in circumstances of persecution, are of course not taken into consideration. Nor is considered the reasonable speculation that these current tensions may very well escalate to a more severe state as the immigrant Muslim community in Western countries grows and garners more sympathy.

 

[slurper_la]

A lot of citizens have suffered at the hands of Muslim immigrants and/or their offspring. I know it's unpopular to state such a truth here.

.
A lot of citizens have suffered (death) at the hands of cops who shoot first and never ask questions. I know it's unpopular to state to your kind.
.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

It seems like neither side in this debate acknowledges the ugly truth of their position.

For the "Fuck the refugees" side, it's this: if you get your way, millions and millions of people are going to die, very publicly and visibly. The current crisis is just the beginning. I've read that in 50 years a good chunk of the population of the Middle East and Africa will be refugees, because of climate change. Whole countries will be unfit for human, or even mammalian, survival. Conveniently, these are the people with the highest birthrates in the world. Where are they going to go? If the livable countries bar their doors, the human suffering will be horrific, brutal and on an unprecedented scale. Do you maintain that we should just avert our eyes from that?

For the "Let them in" side: Again, this problem is just going to keep growing, during and after the current Syrian situation. If your overriding concern is to relieve the immediate human suffering, that's noble, but don't pretend that mass migration on that scale won't fundamentally change the societies where the migrants go. That's just willful ignorance. The other side is absolutely correct that at some point there will have to be compromises made between the belief systems of the newcomers and the individualism, gender equality, sexual freedom, etc., etc. that have come to characterize most of Western life. It's not even about races and religions. It's about traditional ways of life vs. modern ways of life.

 

[FleshFan69]

A lot of citizens have suffered at the hands of Muslim immigrants and/or their offspring. I know it's unpopular to state such a truth here.

I think it would curl your hair and send you running screaming into the night if you knew how many citizens on the entire planet have suffered at the hands of white men and their offspring.

 

[StormfrontFL]

And the offspring of Muslim immigrants.

Shall we also mention the mass murders who were American born of American born parents?

 

[malakos]

It seems like neither side in this debate acknowledges the ugly truth of their position.

I don't believe your sense of the positions is quite right though.

For the "Fuck the refugees" side...

For the "Let them in" side...

This seems to me a false dichotomy. It's not as if the extreme of an open door and open invitation to stay is the only way we can conceivably help.

1) We could alter our foreign policy to one that would better promote stability in the region (ex: stop fighting against Assad). 2) We could put more into aiding refugee settlement in Turkey. I've read (but not yet confirmed) that the efficiency of sending money to help refugees in Turkey is greater than the cost of helping them once they make it over to the West/Europe. 3) We could put pressure on the neighboring States who have the resources to help refugees but have been refusing to do so.

I do not identify with the "fuck the refugees" sentiment. I do believe we have a moral duty to help people in need. However, there are plenty of people across the world in great need in various circumstances. The emphasis on the refugee crisis is a prioritization like any other, and to suggest that someone who prioritizes other needy people over Middle Eastern refugees is dishonest and unfair.

Now that I've made clear that we have, individually and socially, a moral duty to help people in need, I'd like to say something about the State. I do not see the State as the embodiment of the moral will of the People. Such an idea is a rather new innovation. Rather, I see the fundamental purpose of the State as ensuring its own security and that of the citizenry it governs. Theoretically everything else can fall apart, but as long as the State ensures that then it is serving a function. And if it fails in that, then it has ceased to serve its most fundamental function. The State has no moral obligation to help any foreign entities. So, if there is reason to believe that the State must refuse a group of needy foreigners to ensure the security of its citizens, then that is what it ought to do.

it's this: if you get your way, millions and millions of people are going to die, very publicly and visibly.

No, I don't think preventing greater catastrophes would require allowing more millions of foreigners to cross the Mediterranean. That's not the only way we could help this issue.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

I don't believe your sense of the positions is quite right though.



This seems to me a false dichotomy. It's not as if the extreme of an open door and open invitation to stay is the only way we can conceivably help.

I agree, but the discussion, here and in the world generally, seems to often get reduced to the false dichotomy.

1) We could alter our foreign policy to one that would better promote stability in the region (ex: stop fighting against Assad). 2) We could put more into aiding refugee settlement in Turkey. I've read (but not yet confirmed) that the efficiency of sending money to help refugees in Turkey is greater than the cost of helping them once they make it over to the West/Europe. 3) We could put pressure on the neighboring States who have the resources to help refugees but have been refusing to do so.

I do not identify with the "fuck the refugees" sentiment. I do believe we have a moral duty to help people in need. However, there are plenty of people across the world in great need in various circumstances. The emphasis on the refugee crisis is a prioritization like any other, and to suggest that someone who prioritizes other needy people over Middle Eastern refugees is dishonest and unfair.

Now that I've made clear that we have, individually and socially, a moral duty to help people in need, I'd like to say something about the State. I do not see the State as the embodiment of the moral will of the People. Such an idea is a rather new innovation. Rather, I see the fundamental purpose of the State as ensuring its own security and that of the citizenry it governs. Theoretically everything else can fall apart, but as long as the State ensures that then it is serving a function. And if it fails in that, then it has ceased to serve its most fundamental function. The State has no moral obligation to help any foreign entities. So, if there is reason to believe that the State must refuse a group of needy foreigners to ensure the security of its citizens, then that is what it ought to do.



No, I don't think preventing greater catastrophes would require allowing more millions of foreigners to cross the Mediterranean. That's not the only way we could help this issue.

I agree with each of your points. In fact I agree so strongly about the purpose of the state, that I find it offensive when *my* state, which has become so stingy and unresponsive to the suffering of its own citizens, somehow finds the will and the funds to address the suffering of people from other states.

 

[b.c.]

It seems like neither side in this debate acknowledges the ugly truth of their position.

For the "Fuck the refugees" side, it's this: if you get your way, millions and millions of people are going to die, very publicly and visibly. The current crisis is just the beginning. I've read that in 50 years a good chunk of the population of the Middle East and Africa will be refugees, because of climate change. Whole countries will be unfit for human, or even mammalian, survival. Conveniently, these are the people with the highest birthrates in the world. Where are they going to go? If the livable countries bar their doors, the human suffering will be horrific, brutal and on an unprecedented scale. Do you maintain that we should just avert our eyes from that?

For the "Let them in" side: Again, this problem is just going to keep growing, during and after the current Syrian situation. If your overriding concern is to relieve the immediate human suffering, that's noble, but don't pretend that mass migration on that scale won't fundamentally change the societies where the migrants go. That's just willful ignorance. The other side is absolutely correct that at some point there will have to be compromises made between the belief systems of the newcomers and the individualism, gender equality, sexual freedom, etc., etc. that have come to characterize most of Western life. It's not even about races and religions. It's about traditional ways of life vs. modern ways of life.

I'm don't agree that either is an accurate description of the "ugly truth" of either position.

Yes there are many from the "fuck the refugee" side who simply don't give a damn. And some who harbor this nationalistic "white America" sentiment. While others have had their fears of some "Muslim hoard" raging and pillaging across the countryside raised by demagogues, separatists, supremacist, and rabble rousing conservative politicians who've USED and PLAYED upon their fears as a means to empower THEMSELVES.

NO, their bamboozled supporters haven't gotten and more JOBS yet, the current rate of unemployment (brought about by the Obama administration, figures Trump one called made up, but is now trying to take credit for) hasn't changed.

The GOP hasn't increased anyone's TAKE HOME PAY, because they fight tooth and nail against efforts to raise the minimum wage.

Their supporters haven't benefited from any relief on INTEREST RATES, because the GOP has undermined the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau TOO.

They don't live in a safer environment because Trump is cutting deals with fat cat heads of Dow and the like, giving them free rein to distribute poison and carcinogens into the air and water we breathe.

Their supporters don't have any better guarantees on affordable healthcare, or social security, or medicare, or no tax relief of any significance. But HEY, they're happy with Trump and Co. because some Muslim doesn't get to come into the country.

Which is why the GOP and wealthy elites slap each other on the backs and laugh all the way to the fucking BANK while they have their constituency looking for boogiemen under the beds.

As for the "let them in" side, I personally don't know of anyone advocating for free, unfettered, and unlimited mass migration of refugees into the U.S.

If I recall correctly, the Obama administration set the goal at 100,000. That's less than HALF the number of Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in America immediately after the Vietnam War. At last tally (2014) their numbers were something like 1.3 million. Yet THEY haven't caused the "fundamental change" in American society that you suggest. What's more, large numbers of immigrants who come to America have historically tended to remain in communities of their own, initially, before assimilating into the more generalized society.

Not to mention the fact that some 50 to 80 thousand immigrants come to America from the EU on a YEARLY basis. So I seriously doubt the general character of "Western life" would sustain any significant "fundamental change" because of 100,000 Syrian refugees.

 

[Snakebyte]

I'm don't agree that either is an accurate description of the "ugly truth" of either position.

Yes there are many from the "fuck the refugee" side who simply don't give a damn. While others have had their fears of some "Muslim hoard" raging and pillaging across the countryside raised by demagogues, separatists, supremacist, and rabble rousing conservative politicians who've USED and PLAYED upon their and a means to empower THEMSELVES.

NO, their bamboozled supporters haven't gotten and more JOBS yet, the current rate of unemployment (brought about by the Obama administration, figures Trump one called made up, but is now trying to take credit for) hasn't changed.

The GOP hasn't increased anyone's TAKE HOME PAY, because they fight tooth and nail against efforts to raise the minimum wage.

Their supporters haven't benefited from any relief on INTEREST RATES, because the GOP has undermined the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau TOO.

They don't live in a safer environment because Trump is cutting deals with fat cat heads of Dow and the like, giving them free rein to distribute poison and carcinogens into the air and water we breathe.

Their supporters don't have any better guarantees on affordable healthcare, or social security, or medicare, or no tax relief of any significance. But HEY, they're happy with Trump and Co. because some Muslim doesn't get to come into the country.

Which is why the GOP and wealthy elites slap each other on the backs and laugh all the way to the fucking BANK while they have their constituency looking for boogiemen under the beds.

As for the "let them in" side, I personally don't know of anyone advocating for free, unfettered, and unlimited mass migration of refugees into the U.S. If I recall correctly, the Obama administration set the goal at 100,000. That's less than HALF the number of Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in America immediately after the Vietnam War. At last tally (2014) their numbers were something like 1.3 million. Yet THEY haven't caused the "fundamental change" in American society that you suggest. What's more, large numbers of immigrants who come to America have historically tended to remain in communities of their own, initially, before assimilating into the more generalized society.

Not to mention the fact that some 50 to 80 thousand immigrants come to America from the EU on a YEARLY basis. So I seriously doubt the general character of "Western life" would sustain any significant "fundamental change" because of 100,000 Syrian refugees.

Well, you may have no problems in the US. But in some European countries, which took in hundreds of thousands in the last two years, you definitely can see the problems.
For example poor families had to leave their homes because the state needed it for refugees (yes, that's no joke and it is well documented). No respect for women isn't that rare. Awful behaviour in public swimming pools. For lots of them their religion is more important than local laws. And so on and so on.
Btw: 90% of Vietnamese are atheists. You can't compare them to deeply religious muslims. Different groups of immigrants mean different things. I guess if 50% of your population would be hispanic over night, there wouldn't be that much of a change. Muslims on the other hand.. there definitely would be. Same if 50% would be KKK over night. Same for every group that doesn't really fit into modern believes.

 

[b.c.]

Well, you may have no problems in the US. But in some European countries, which took in hundreds of thousands in the last two years, you definitely can see the problems.
For example poor families had to leave their homes because the state needed it for refugees (yes, that's no joke and it is well documented). No respect for women isn't that rare. Awful behaviour in public swimming pools. For lots of them their religion is more important than local laws. And so on and so on.
Btw: 90% of Vietnamese are atheists. You can't compare them to deeply religious muslims. Different groups of immigrants mean different things. I guess if 50% of your population would be hispanic over night, there wouldn't be that much of a change. Muslims on the other hand.. there definitely would be. Same if 50% would be KKK over night. Same for every group that doesn't really fit into modern believes.

I don't know about Vietnamese in general. But 90% of Vietnamese immigrants to America aren't atheists. In fact, most in my community are devout Catholics.

And yes, there have been incidents that I'm certain SOME have used for the purpose of discrediting the whole. Nevertheless, with all of what France, for example, endured, who did the people elect? The bigot isolationist, or Macron?

 

[Penis Aficionado]

I'm don't agree that either is an accurate description of the "ugly truth" of either position.

Yes there are many from the "fuck the refugee" side who simply don't give a damn. And some who harbor this nationalistic "white America" sentiment. While others have had their fears of some "Muslim hoard" raging and pillaging across the countryside raised by demagogues, separatists, supremacist, and rabble rousing conservative politicians who've USED and PLAYED upon their fears as a means to empower THEMSELVES.

NO, their bamboozled supporters haven't gotten and more JOBS yet, the current rate of unemployment (brought about by the Obama administration, figures Trump one called made up, but is now trying to take credit for) hasn't changed.

The GOP hasn't increased anyone's TAKE HOME PAY, because they fight tooth and nail against efforts to raise the minimum wage.

Their supporters haven't benefited from any relief on INTEREST RATES, because the GOP has undermined the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau TOO.

They don't live in a safer environment because Trump is cutting deals with fat cat heads of Dow and the like, giving them free rein to distribute poison and carcinogens into the air and water we breathe.

Their supporters don't have any better guarantees on affordable healthcare, or social security, or medicare, or no tax relief of any significance. But HEY, they're happy with Trump and Co. because some Muslim doesn't get to come into the country.

Which is why the GOP and wealthy elites slap each other on the backs and laugh all the way to the fucking BANK while they have their constituency looking for boogiemen under the beds.

As for the "let them in" side, I personally don't know of anyone advocating for free, unfettered, and unlimited mass migration of refugees into the U.S.

If I recall correctly, the Obama administration set the goal at 100,000. That's less than HALF the number of Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in America immediately after the Vietnam War. At last tally (2014) their numbers were something like 1.3 million. Yet THEY haven't caused the "fundamental change" in American society that you suggest. What's more, large numbers of immigrants who come to America have historically tended to remain in communities of their own, initially, before assimilating into the more generalized society.

Not to mention the fact that some 50 to 80 thousand immigrants come to America from the EU on a YEARLY basis. So I seriously doubt the general character of "Western life" would sustain any significant "fundamental change" because of 100,000 Syrian refugees.

What's the logic behind the 100,000 number? Do you like that number? Why? Because you think it's a sustainable number? Because it makes you feel good about your country? What about when the climate-driven mass migration really starts? How many then? What if I said, "As a taxpayer, I'd prefer you take the money for 100,000 Syrian refugees and spend it on 100,000 homeless Americans." Would that make me a bigot? My point is, as a country we should have general principles about this, because the numbers are going to become more and more extreme. It shouldn't just depend on what the current administration decides is the "goal."

As for the Vietnamese, you're right, I wouldn't say Vietnamese immigrants have caused fundamental change in American society. But where do they live? Are they pretty evenly distributed through the U.S., or did they tend to congregate in a few cities? If the latter, they may have profoundly changed those communities.

I didn't say 100,000 Syrian refugees would fundamentally change Western life. But I think 10 million non-Western refugees might, what about you? There will likely be tens, maybe hundreds of millions of climate refugees wandering the earth later this century.

 

[Perados]

Shall we also mention the mass murders who were American born of American born parents?

No... you can't mention this, he will ignore it. I have tried

 

[Snakebyte]

I don't know about Vietnamese in general. But 90% of Vietnamese immigrants to America aren't atheists. In fact, most in my community are devout Catholics.

And yes, there have been incidents that I'm certain SOME have used for the purpose of discrediting the whole. Nevertheless, with all of what France, for example, endured, who did the people elect? The bigot isolationist, or Macron?

Yet the right-wing did grow a lot. You seem to forget about that. If the problems get bigger I am not so sure the next election will look the same. Besides that France is actually a bad example since
a) lots of North-Africans are automatically french citiziens and have been living in France for a long time
b) France has taken in way less refugees than other countries
c) France is under emergency rule for quite a while now